Once high ISO noise becomes the dominating factor in sensor noise, Canon's sensors are competitive with Sony's.

The question is: How high is "high iso", what difference is there really between Nikon & Canon and how many people need that high iso performance with your average f4 lens when not shooting fast moving object in bad lighting?

While a 5d3 of course is great for weddings and such, I guess the next Nikon generation and after will push their high iso performance, too and thus Canon seems to be on the loosing track. Because as you wrote, 50mp+ is ridiculous for average photogs because the lenses cannot follow and the processing power skyrockets.

A better way to handle this would probably be to go with a test APS-C camera.

Historically, Canon is set on the ff path because their customers have spent their money on ef lenses that are only partially used on aps-c. I guess that's the reason why Canon never showed that much "love" for aps-c lenses: No L marketing, inferior build quality, no weather sealing - the ef-s lenses are there to be phased or go consumer market sooner or later. So I don't think we'll see more mp than Nikon in aps-c from Canon soon.

Why is everyone so hung up on the technolgy in their camera? At the end of the day it is the IQ that it delivers rather than what it uses to deliver the image.

The question is if it's still "safe" to spend thousands and thousands of bucks for Canon lenses when the Nikon competition is backed by Sony and has much more r&d money for their sensors - and this does influence iq very much on the long run.

Why is everyone so hung up on the technolgy in their camera? At the end of the day it is the IQ that it delivers rather than what it uses to deliver the image.

The question is if it's still "safe" to spend thousands and thousands of bucks for Canon lenses when the Nikon competition is backed by Sony and has much more r&d money for their sensors - and this does influence iq very much on the long run.

I have no inherent brand loyalty.

If I was going to spend thousands and thousands on kit then I would consider a tactical approach ie what is currently available or known to be available rather that what might be.

I have just made some major purchases and yes I did consider what Nikon was offering and worked out the figures. There was little in the reviews that suggested that (for me) that Nikon was much different to Canon, but the budget was significantly lower by staying with Canon, so I stayed.

Puchasing for me is more of a logical process than an emotive process.

In hindsight my puchases worked well for me - I ended up with the 1Ds3 and didn't have to wait for the 5DIII or endure the teething problems, and have a camera that has simillar functionality and at least as good IQ.

Don't underestimate the power of market forces. I'm sure Canon has had a high MP sensor in development for quite some time now, don't be fooled into thinking they were caught off guard by the D800, I'm sure they knew what Nikon was going to release, but I also think they were caught off guard by it's price point.

Interesting - I wanted to write the exact opposite: While Canon certainly knew what Sony's tech could achieve in a Nikon full frame body, the fact that they are targeting early 2013 for the actual release of their successor and that they strangely produce the 5d2 along the successor 5d3 looks to me like they were caught off guard and now have to start thinking about how to fill the 5d2 successor and high mp gap. Maybe they put all their resources into their video line and took their dlsr position too much for granted.

From Canon's recent launches, it is obvious that they are trying to build a portfolio around DLSR based movie cams. I would not be surprised to see a 5DC... Perhaps with a much weaker AA filter to improve resolution, better codec... After all, the only real complain about the 5DIII's video capability is the resolving power.

But the biggest complaint is still about the lack of DR improvement. This is what they will take care of first, if they aren't stupid.

i have a bad feeling they will just go crazy with MP 45 and yet with the same old poor DR and zero fps and thus be worse than D800 in every way other than a space eating extra few MP

Unfortunately I think the same. Too late too little with high price - they still plan carefully which features go where, there doesn't seem to be desire to push limits. At this I'm not even sure if Canon is capable of making a decent sensor. On top of all, announced early delivered who knows when.

p.s. there is absolutely nothing wrong with higher prices as far as they match the marketplace reality. Why not pay more for objectively premium product.

Gotta say, I wouldn't mind a "FF rebel" - I've been shooting 1,6x crop with max 70mm for almost 4 years now and I've yet to feel a sudden urge to go further with mm (and even then, FF 200mm would be my ceiling). We're not all wlidlife/stadium sports photographers - there's lot to be captured in the wide, medium range.

seta666

I think a cheaper alternative to the 5D mkIII is needed; not everybody needs 61p AF or weather sealing for instance. I think a 1500$ FF is possible nowadays and I wish those nikon D600 rumours are true, because canon will have to do something about it

For instance as a macro shooter I do not need the AF, burst or fancy stuff like video but I would wellcome a couple of stops better DR (which 5D mkIII) does not provide or Hardware ISO 50

... If Canon were to introduce an entry-level FF camera at that price point then it would get in the way of the 7D2 (if that remained a APS-C.)

So I cannot see the future having any room for a crop-sensor 7D Mark II.

FFFanboys have a hard time realizing that not everyone wants or needs a FF camera! Size and weight are very important to some Pros. And these Pros have even switched to M43 to get rid of unwanted size/weight.

WOW!!!, a 20 oz. (1lb. 4 oz.) difference between a NEX 7 and a 5D2 Isn't it about time for Canon to come out with a Pro Mirrorless

BTW I rented a 5D3 for a test shoot, nice camera, but too damned heavy.

BTW2 I own a Sony NEX 5n, that I bought to use as a Video Crash Cam. Great video, great stills (blows away Canon APS-C) and this 16.1 Mp APS-C camera only weighs 7.4 oz. . It has no EVF , but that's not needed for a Crash Cam.

Logged

briansquibb

FFFanboys have a hard time realizing that not everyone wants or needs a FF camera! Size and weight are very important to some Pros. And these Pros have even switched to M43 to get rid of unwanted size/weight.

WOW!!!, a 20 oz. (1lb. 4 oz.) difference between a NEX 7 and a 5D2 Isn't it about time for Canon to come out with a Pro Mirrorless

BTW I rented a 5D3 for a test shoot, nice camera, but too damned heavy.

BTW2 I own a Sony NEX 5n, that I bought to use as a Video Crash Cam. Great video, great stills (blows away Canon APS-C) and this 16.1 Mp APS-C camera only weighs 7.4 oz. . It has no EVF , but that's not needed for a Crash Cam.

Well Sony fanboy, nice to see you on this Canon site. Good luck with sticking a 600mm lens on your NEX5

DonHorne

I'd love a stripped down full frame camera with a great sensor, decent build quality, better than 5D Mark II focusing, at least 98% viewfinder and good battery life. Throw out video & live view and any other bells & whistles that aren't of any use for a still shooter. Price it at $1599 and it'll fly off the shelves.

Honestly I'm just tired of the video features in DSLRs, I can't recall doing any serious video work on my 1D Mark IV or 5D Mark II besides just tinkering. I'd rather take the money saved from buying stripped down still cameras and just buy a dedicated video camera if I ever go down that road.